This section is intended to introduce the reader to various aspects of the art that may be related to various aspects of the present invention. The following discussion is intended to provide information to facilitate a better understanding of the present invention. Accordingly, it should be understood that statements in the following discussion are to be read in this light, and not as admissions of prior art.
The IP-CAN (IP Connectivity Access Network) sits between RAN (Radio Access Network) and the CN (Core Network), connecting access-side signaling to the service controls in the core.
PCC (Policy and Charging Control) architecture could take decision according to the type of IP-CAN used. This scenario is depicted here (See 3GPP TS 23.203 V9.4. FIG. 5.1.1).
In FIG. 1, the most important reference elements are the following:                PCRF (Policy and Charging Rules Function) is a functional element that performs policy control decision and flow based charging control. The PCRF provides network control regarding the service data flow detection, gating, QoS and flow based charging (except credit management) towards the PCEF.        PCEF (Policy Control Enforcement Function) encompasses service data flow detection, policy enforcement and flow based charging functionalities. DPI (Deep Packet Inspection), embedded in PCEF, technology supports packet inspection and service classification, which consists on IP packets classified according to a configured tree of rules so that they are assigned to a particular service session.        The Gx reference point is defined in 3GPP TS 29.212 V9.2.0 and lies between the Policy and Charging Rule Function (PCRF) and the Policy and Charging Enforcement Function (PCEF).        The Gy reference point is defined in 3GPP TS 32.299 and 23.215 lying between the PCEF (Policy and Charging Enforcement Function) and the Online Charging System (OCS).        
Parental control devices provide solutions with the ability to set limits and controls on children's usage across all wireless services. Actual parental control solutions allow end users to select a predefined content-category list that defines the contents to be monitored. Those categories are usually defined for external sources (operator, 3rd parties) and not for end-user.
In many cases, these content-category lists do not satisfy the end-user content-filtering requirements. End users are not able to personalize their own lists for themselves. Therefore, end users adapt their needs using external tools as control parental policies in their browsers. However the intelligence of these tools is limited and usually restricted to URLs and not contents. In other occasions, these tools need to download or to access policies from content-filtering servers that cannot be adapted to end-user requirements.
The mobile operators also provide solutions for content-filtering based on Internet Content Adaptation Protocol (ICAP). ICAP allows having different levels of filtering and restricts access to inappropriate websites depending on the user profile. Some mobile operators allow that the end user chooses between different user profiles that have restricted different access to websites. This choice is usually done by a central web server or by a phone to Customer Contact Center. Anyway this solution only can restrict HTTP services (URLs and webpage content), cannot personalize the content-filtering rules and allows only choosing a set of user profiles already predefined.